Limited Government and Free Market Views in Delaware

DISTRICT REDUCTION REQUIRES A PRELIMINARY STEP

Any district reduction study must first consider a BOLD systemic change to the way the current, bureaucratic education system operates with school boards and district hierarchies. If operational decision-making authority is not shifted to the local buildings, we will end up with the same erroneous conclusions of the 2002 study conducted by the Delaware Secretary of Education in response to House Resolution 54.

Considering only Kent and Sussex counties, that study concluded that if those counties had only one school district each it would cost the state an additional $7.2 million dollars! This result was caused by including teacher leveled-up pay scales but not reductions in district personnel expenses nor reductions in district office and facility operating expenses along with possible opportunities to rent or sell district buildings. Why? Because without changing the existing bloated, bureaucratic system and using regular state funding formulas, the new, larger districts simply rehired just about everyone (except for superintendents). In some cases they actually added personnel. Some current elected officials still cite that study to support their position of not reducing the number of school districts.

The concept of transferring operational decision-making authority from school boards and district bureaucracies to the individual school buildings is not new. It originated and was piloted in Delaware in 1995 with the support of Governor Carper, the Department of Public Instruction (now the Department of Education), and the business community (led by the DuPont Company). This education reform effort was done (listen up Governor Carney) to improve the state’s economy. The Education Department’s draft of regulations stated, “Reliance on bureaucratic decisions would be a thing of the past.” “Parents and teachers are less restricted by decisions made at a district or state level.” “…try new approaches to learning without bureaucratic restrictions.” “…empower local communities further with additional decision-making authority.”

The original Memorandum of Understanding offered to Delaware’s lowest performing schools also reflected the BOLD systemic change. Under the MOU the Priority Schools would have authority over employment decisions, budget, curriculum, instructional practices, school calendar, scheduling, etc. and they would have autonomy from any district requirements not mandated by state or federal law. If these local control changes were thought to improve the performance of the state’s lowest performing schools, why wouldn’t they be given to all public schools? This should also provide comfort to parents who fear that they would have to deal with officials in a much larger, possibly impersonal district. With district reductions and the shifting of authority to the local schools, parents would have better access to education decision makers. In fact, they would be at their children’s schools every day.

The move to reduce the number of school districts is not a criticism of current district personnel. It is, however, a condemnation of the existing, antiquated, bloated bureaucratic school system. At one time transportation was heavily dependent on horses. With the invention of the internal combustion engine, horses weren’t vilified but they were replaced by more efficient and productive means of transportation. In education, some folks insist on providing more hay and oats and continue to deal with the inevitable muck that follows. Einstein once commented on doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Well, it’s time to break out of the barn and move on to greener pastures. Let’s shift the operational authority to the individual schools. This will increase local control and since, “one size doesn’t fit all’, it will customize education and not standardize it. Then we can talk about five or, maybe, three school districts for the state.

Ron Russo,

Senior Fellow, Caesar Rodney Institute

Founding President, Charter School of Wilmington

Former Principal, St. Mark’s High School

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

One Response

This cracks me up. Just today, literally, 27 June in the year of our Lord 2017, the GOMeToo caucus in Dover sent out a whining email that included, among other equally ridiculous items, this “we’ve just discovered fire!” statement: “we have proposed a three-year process to study, design and implement major changes in our … education system(s).”

I guess they missed the 2002 study. And the 1995. And the ones before those. And the ones since. And the ones conducted in all the other states.

“BOLD” doesn’t remotely apply to CRI, much less to the woefully inadequate folks in elective office.

“BOLD,” unfortunately remains the exclusive domain of the destroyers, Rodel and DSEA being top of mind and clearly untouchable.

So the well positioned (so-called) adults with a platform from all corners, public and private, harrumph around and issue proclamations and scholarly critiques, with no true sense of urgency or need, nor price to pay, while generation after generation of our most valuable and most vulnerable continue to pay the price of their fecklessness.